All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Please Log In to Continue

With top 100 lists I typically gauge the relative ranking in groups -- so 1-20 are basically ranked the same (as are 21-40, 41-60, etc.) and there's no use getting worked up over what's ranked 1 vs. 11. (Well, there's no use getting worked up about a top 100 list, but we're speaking relatively here.)

Even so, on this list, there are some books in the top fifth that certainly aren't, and some books that are in the bottom fifth that are much better than that. Two random examples: HHGTTG is much better than many of the 84 books that precede it on this list, and while Man in the High Castle may be PKD's best work, neither Valis nor The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch belong in the top 20.Day of the Triffids certainly belongs in the top 20, but so do War of the Worlds, the Time Machine, Neuromancer and Br

Exactly! Comparisons should be made at the coarse level, not too granular.

That said, one thing I just noticed is that the list is of the "science fiction books you just have to read" rather than the "best". So is the list focusing on impact or quality? And is it impact in the general culture or just in the SF culture?

This list [geocities.com] was my personal favorite, but is unfortunately defunct now. The list publisher was a hard working mathematician who collected votes via email and periodically used an iterative weighting algorithm to combine recency with longevity. The result was a fairly stable list of classics combined with new hits. The value of the list came from the large number of voters.